↓ Skip to main content

Context-dependent generalization

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
99 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Context-dependent generalization
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00171
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jordan A. Taylor, Richard B. Ivry

Abstract

The pattern of generalization following motor learning can provide a probe on the neural mechanisms underlying learning. For example, the breadth of generalization to untrained regions of space after visuomotor adaptation to targets in a restricted region of space has been attributed to the directional tuning properties of neurons in the motor system. Building on this idea, the effect of different types of perturbations on generalization (e.g., rotation vs. visual translation) have been attributed to the selection of differentially tuned populations. Overlooked in this discussion is consideration of how the context of the training environment may constrain generalization. Here, we explore the role of context by having participants learn a visuomotor rotation or a translational shift in two different contexts, one in which the array of targets were presented in a circular arrangement and the other in which they were presented in a rectilinear arrangement. The perturbation and environments were either consistent (e.g., rotation with circular arrangement) or inconsistent (e.g., rotation with rectilinear arrangement). The pattern of generalization across the workspace was much more dependent on the context of the environment than on the perturbation, with broad generalization for the rectilinear arrangement for both types of perturbations. Moreover, the generalization pattern for this context was evident, even when the perturbation was introduced in a gradual manner, precluding the use of an explicit strategy. We describe how current models of generalization might be modified to incorporate these results, building on the idea that context provides a strong bias for how the motor system infers the nature of the visuomotor perturbation and, in turn, how this information influences the pattern of generalization.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 3%
Germany 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
France 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Israel 1 1%
Unknown 91 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 27%
Researcher 17 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 11%
Student > Master 11 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Other 17 17%
Unknown 9 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 21 21%
Neuroscience 20 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 15%
Engineering 14 14%
Sports and Recreations 6 6%
Other 12 12%
Unknown 11 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 May 2013.
All research outputs
#18,338,033
of 22,709,015 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#6,050
of 7,126 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,016
of 280,729 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#764
of 862 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,709,015 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,126 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 280,729 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 862 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.